UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

a reply to: NavyDoc

A good message that creationism is not a science.
And it should be left in the religious studies class.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

A good message that creationism is not a science.
And it should be left in the religious studies class.

That's not an answer, that's a deflection.

How is banning something that only a minority believes and is only taught in a minority of places going to make a difference, especially when the great majority of your educational problems involve truancy, drug/alcohol abuse, lack of standards, and absent parents?

a reply to: NavyDoc

We really going to turn this into an US v UK education debate?.
It is an answer one you may not like but an honest one.
It also means faith based schools can't attempt to put creation in the science class which is a good thing.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

We really going to turn this into an US v UK education debate?.
It is an answer one you may not like but an honest one.
It also means faith based schools can't attempt to put creation in the science class which is a good thing.

I didn't say anything about US vs UK.

I was simply pointing out, really and honestly, how can you say this really makes a difference considering the majority of the UK is not religious and a vast minority of the schools teach creationism? You honestly think this law will really make one whit's of difference?

a reply to: NavyDoc

It will stop creation being taught as a science so yes it is a good thing.
More time in the classroom for actual science so of course it will be a good thing and will make a difference.
We will have less people who fall for the creationist BS more following actual science.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

It will stop creation being taught as a science so yes it is a good thing.
More time in the classroom for actual science so of course it will be a good thing.

So you say that it is a good thing without, ironically, any real evidence to support it.

So a small minority of schools who did teach it, no longer can. How can you evidence that this will change the overall picture? Leave room for what? More math? More wasted time? More staring at IPhones?

I'm an atheist, I don't give a whit about creationism, but this reeks more of pushing dislikes over what really will help.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

It will stop creation being taught as a science so yes it is a good thing.
More time in the classroom for actual science so of course it will be a good thing.

So they are replacing creation classes in these few schools with more science? Any data to back that up?

a reply to: NavyDoc

No it is simply having science classes for science and creation can be taught in RE classes it isn't a bad thing only good.
I can't see how you think it is bad?.
Anyhow it has been in for a year now and not heard anyone complain.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No they are just making sure science classes are for science and not creationist stuff which takes away from the science lesson.
Kids can still have RE lessons If they wish.

This is great news! Hopefully the US will dummy up and quit trying force feed our kids these ridiculous religious fables about our origins and nature. Maybe then we'll be able raise our academic standards on pare with the rest of the civilized nations. Till then, I guess we'll just keep importing brains from other countries to try and keep our current technology ahead of the game.
Sad but true..

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

No it is simply having science classes for science and creation can be taught in RE classes it isn't a bad thing only good.
I can't see how you think it is bad?.
Anyhow it has been in for a year now and not heard anyone complain.

' I don't think it's bad, I think its silly overkill.

So you don't have any evidence other than your own feelings about it--sounds just like rabid creationists just from the other side.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

I have a theory: We place "In God We Trust" on our money because we are the whore of Babylon, and we worship money. Our religion is Mammon; we feed our children to a flaming pit and call it "patriotism."

There is nothing Godly about our belief in the sanctity of money. Jesus was nothing like you or the rest of the so-called "Christians" in the USA. You can ramble on if you like, we both have the freedom to express ourselves openly. Do you honestly believe "God" is a 13 year old boy? God doesn't demand sniveling adoration. God (if it exists) created the entire universe. Your enslavement is neither desired, nor interesting to the infinite.

Recall the feeding of the 5000? Jesus didn't make war on the "other," he fed them, for FREE. Ponder that parable if you still can.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No it doesn't the simple fact is we have decided in the UK that science education is for the science class and creationism is for the RE class.
It is logical to do so why waste time having to teach creationism in a science class?.

Or do you think it is ok to teach creationism in a science class?.

Oh and I know teachers wanted this also.
I know a teacher and she works at a CoE priimary school and they made her teach creationism in the classroom instead of science and she hated it but now she can teach evolution as science and the creationist stuff as religious studies.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Silly overkill? maybe you need a law like this in the USA.
Maybe help out on the denying evolution BS.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

No it doesn't the simple fact is we have decided in the UK that science education is for the science class and creationism is for the RE class.
It is logical to do so why waste time having to teach creationism in a science class?.

Or do you think it is ok to teach creationism in a science class?.

That's not my point. As you have said, a small minority of schools cater a small minority of religious remaining in the UK. How can one logically say that this law makes any difference if it was such a disregarded minority?

Are the classes being replaced with science classes? You keep saying that it will make more time for that, but that begs the question--ARE they?

One beef I have with religious nuts is lack of evidence and emotion over reason, but so far you have been just as bad in that regard.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Right as it used to stand say in a 2 hour science lesson they may have had to waste some time on the creationist angle now they don't and can use that time for just what it says on the door science class.
Thats what I mean by more time dedicated to actual science.
The law came in because some faith schools were teaching creationism when creationism is not in the national curriculum and so the Government said If you want funding teach the curriculum.
Read more here.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Oh and what do you want evidence for? I have said more time for science in the classroom will be better for science education. You want evidence that more time on a subject means better grades? I thought that is obvious.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

Right as it used to stand say in a 2 hour science lesson they may have had to waste some time on the creationist angle now they don't and can use that time for just what it says on the door science class.
Thats what I mean by more time dedicated to actual science.
The law came in because some faith schools were teaching creationism when creationism is not in the national curriculum and so the Government said If you want funding teach the curriculum.
Read more here.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Oh and what do you want evidence for? I have said more time for science in the classroom will be better for science education. You want evidence that more time on a subject means better grades? I thought that is obvious.

But you have presented zero evidence that this time will be used for more science.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

Right as it used to stand say in a 2 hour science lesson they may have had to waste some time on the creationist angle now they don't and can use that time for just what it says on the door science class.
Thats what I mean by more time dedicated to actual science.
The law came in because some faith schools were teaching creationism when creationism is not in the national curriculum and so the Government said If you want funding teach the curriculum.
Read more here.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Oh and what do you want evidence for? I have said more time for science in the classroom will be better for science education. You want evidence that more time on a subject means better grades? I thought that is obvious.

But you have presented zero evidence that this time will be used for more science.

a reply to: NavyDoc

what do YOU suggest this time will be used for?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: NavyDoc

what do YOU suggest this time will be used for?

Math.
Chemistry.

Not sitting there and texting on your bleeding mobiles.


But he still has presented no evidence that in these few schools the one issue will be replaced with something more constructive. All he has done was crow about his dislike for the religious minority.